Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because the extent of force you use in your defence has to be in proportion to the threat of or the level of violence you were confronted with.
So, for example, if you punched someone to the ground in self-defence then that might be okay. But, if you followed that up by giving the individual a good kicking while they were on the ground that might be deemed a level of force that was out of proportion to the threat.
But if you're defending yourself in your own home how can anyone say what level of force was necessary? An American would be incredulous at having to defend himself for...defending himself. No halfway decent District Attorney would even think of putting a crime victim on the spot like that. The assumption is that the crud had it coming.
...... No halfway decent District Attorney would even think of putting a crime victim on the spot like that. The assumption is that the crud had it coming.
DAs in DC, NYC or Chicago, I'm not so sure about that.
But if you're defending yourself in your own home how can anyone say what level of force was necessary? An American would be incredulous at having to defend himself for...defending himself. No halfway decent District Attorney would even think of putting a crime victim on the spot like that. The assumption is that the crud had it coming.
That just shows that some Americans think they have a right to kill anybody and do whatever they want to somebody they think is taking their stuff. Sunshine, your link just proves that wrong.
You have to be able to prove beyond a doubt that you feared for your life and you thought you might die at the hands of the intruder. If you can do that you will most likely be OK. Having somebody rooting around your truck and who is unarmed is not one of those situations.
If there was rioting and looting in my town and a gang of people came to my house and broke in, then it would be OK to kill them.
Why would you need a lawyer if all you did was defend yourself?
Because the person you defended yourself against is naturally going to claim to be the victim of assault by you. If that person makes a good enough claim, the matter can wind up in court.
But if you're defending yourself in your own home how can anyone say what level of force was necessary? An American would be incredulous at having to defend himself for...defending himself. No halfway decent District Attorney would even think of putting a crime victim on the spot like that. The assumption is that the crud had it coming.
No, that is not the assumption. The police will look at your reported reaction, compare it to you report of the other guy's provocation. *And* they will look at the other guys' reports of the same events. Depending on how the reports compare, and that may depend on how eloquent that other guy is, a self-defence action may well end up in court.
"US Media reporting vigilante type groups patrolling their neighborhoods"
I haven't seen/read/heard a single report in the U.S. media about vigilante groups. I've seen reports of people taking to the streets with brooms to clean up, along with lots of arrests by police, but no vigilantes roaming the streets...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
